THE PARTICIPATION OF THEPROTESTANT OBSERVERS IN THE
COMPILATIONOF THE NEW CATHOLIC LITURGICAL TEXTS

On 3 May
1970 La Documentation Catholique published the text of a speech made by
Pope Paul VI to the members of the Consilium, the body responsible for
implementing the very generalized principles of liturgical reform included in
the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II. I have shown in Pope John's
Council the extent to which this reform not only failed to correspond with
the revisions envisaged by the Council Fathers but acted in formal contradiction
with both the Liturgy Constitution and the papally-approved liturgical movement.
The cover of this issue of La Documentation Catholique was devoted to a
picture of Pope Paul VI posing with the six Protestant Observers who had been
invited to participate in the work of the Consilium. This photograph
proved to be a source of astonishment and even scandal to large numbers of the
faithful who had had no idea that Protestants had played any part in the
compilation of the new Catholic rites. It resulted in public controversy in a
number of countries, which was followed by official denials that the Observers
had, in fact, played any part in the compilation of the new rites. These denials
have since been cited by apologists for the official reform as "refutations" of
the allegation that Protestant Observers had taken an active part in the
compilation of new rites. There is, however, a considerable difference between a
denial and a refutation, and these particular denials are totally gratuitous and
contradict the available evidence.

In the July-August 1974 issue of
Notitiae, official journal of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship,
Archbishop Bugnini (its Secretary) claimed that the Observers confined their
role simply to observing (pp. 249-250). Here are his exact words:

What role did the "Observers" play in the Consilium? Nothing more
than that of - "Observers." First of all, they only took part in the study
meetings. In the second place, they behaved with impeccable discretion. They
never intervened in the discussions and never asked to speak.

On 25
February 1976, the Director of the Vatican Press Office gave the following reply
to a question by the journalist Georges Huber as to whether the Protestant
Observers participated in the elaboration of the New Mass:

The Protestant Observers did not participate in the elaboration of the
texts of the new Missal.

This denial was printed in La Documentation
Catholique on 4 July 1976.

In contrast with this Msgr. W. W. Baum
(now Cardinal Baum), an ardent ecumenist, made the following statement in a
personal interview with the The Detroit News, 27 June 1967:

They are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well,
and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical
renewal. It wouldn't mean much if they just listened, but they contributed.
(My emphasis.)

In order to place this statement in its correct context
it must be made clear that, at the time he made it, Msgr. Baum was executive
director of the American Catholic Bishops' Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, and
the first Catholic spokesman ever invited to address the General Synod of the
United Church of Christ, an American Protestant denomination. During his address
he revealed to the delegates that Protestant scholars "have had a voice" in the
revision of the Catholic liturgy. As a follow-up to this revelation, Harold
Acharhern, Religious Correspondent of the Detroit News, obtained the
interview with Msgr. Baum from which I have quoted.

The account given by
Cardinal Baum, and the denials issued by Archbishop Bugnini and the Vatican
Press Office, are clearly contradictory. In order to discover the truth, I wrote
to one of the Observers, Canon Ronald Jasper. Before giving his reply it is
necessary to explain the manner in which the Consilium did its work.
Firstly, there were the study sessions during which the practical details of the
reform were worked out, discussed, and modified. Then there were the formal
(plenary) meetings during which the draft services which had been compiled in
the study sessions were debated and voted upon. In my letter to Canon Jasper, I
explained that I was working upon a series of books on the liturgical reform and
that I particularly wished to know whether the Observers had had a voice in the
new rites of Mass and Ordination. In his reply, dated 10 February 1977, he
explained that the Observers received all the documents from the drafters of the
new service in the same way as did other members of the Consilium. They
were then present at the debates when they were presented by the experts and
debated by the Consilium, but the Observers were not allowed to join in
the debate.

In the afternoon, however, they always had an informal
meeting with the periti who had prepared the draft services and at these
meeting they were certainly allowed to comment and criticize and make
suggestions. It was then for the periti to decide whether any of their
points were worth taking up when the general debates in the Consilium
were resumed. But, explained Canon Jasper in conclusion, these informal meeting
were a complete free-for-all, and there was a very frank exchange of
views.

Exactly the same process took place during the course of Vatican
II. The Protestant Observers, while not allowed to speak in the plenary
sessions, were able to take an active part in the informal discussions where the
real work of drafting the documents was done. Their influence is visible in the
finalized documents themselves, and evidence of it is provided in Chapter IX of
Pope John's Council. In addition to this evidence, the following
testimonies are relevant.

Archdeacon Pawley, an Anglican Observer,
reveals that:

. . . in the course of the Council itself the fullest courtesies and
opportunities for communication and exchange were allowed to these Observers
at every stage, and traces of the process can be recognized in the documents
themselves.

Robert McAfee Brown, a Presbyterian Observer, remarks:

Particularly during the discussion on ecumenism, it was apparent that many
bishops wanted to know what Protestant reactions were to statements in the
schema about Protestantism, and wanted to elicit Protestant opinions on
how the schema could be improved. Thus, although we had no direct
"voice" on the Council floor, we did indeed have an indirect voice through the
many contacts that were possible with the Fathers and their indispensable
strong right arms, the periti.

Dr. McAfee Brown also reveals that
there were occasions when the Observers were able to have a direct voice on the
floor. "Is there anything you Observers want said on the Council floor about
De Oecumenismo?" one bishop asked. The Observes then put their views in
writing, to be incorporated into written interventions made on their behalf, by
bishops.

Thus, although it could be argued that officially the Observers
played no part in drafting the counciliar documents, as they could neither vote
nor speak in the debates, it is clear that they were able to influence the final
format of these documents. This is precisely what took place with the
formulation of the new liturgical rites by the post-conciliar
Consilium.